A few mornings ago I was listening to a radio talk show, where a discussion was being held regarding the ethics of fetal research. A man had written a book, apparently defending the use of fetal tissue harvested from aborted fetuses, for research and medicinal purposes. It is believed that the injection of certain cells of a fetus can be beneficial in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
The host of the show very quickly revealed his bias concerning the subject. To encourage discussion and response from listeners he asked, “Do you believe that a fetus, obviously on its way to becoming a human being, should be used for these purposes?” The host assumed what had first to be settled, whether or not a fetus is human. It is precisely upon that basis that we object to such usage. Since by far the majority of fetuses are made available through abortion, this question of what the fetus is must be settled, for it leads to two very different questions.
If the fetus is not human, not a baby, then the question would be: “After the medical procedure called an abortion is completed, should the mass of tissue be used for medical purposes?” However, if the fetus is a child, the question would be: “After a doctor murders a child by the immoral procedure of an abortion, should he further be allowed to benefit from the murder by experimenting on the dead body?” Obviously, a very different picture is presented.
Two things stated during the discussion were revealing. One was the question of consent. The very fact that some are advocating that the mother’s consent be obtained prior to the usage of the fetus reveals our understanding that it is a child. A parallel was given to the organ donation of one who has died, that family consent must be obtained before organs can be donated. Nevertheless, the host and his guest did not see the obvious parallel. The fetus is a baby! Imagine, asking a woman who has just allowed her child to be murdered, if it will be acceptable for the body of the murdered child to be used in science. Such consent given would be a prime example of a mother devoid of any natural affection.
Second was a mention of a scientific fact. Did you know that a female, unborn child, has fully developed eggs very early in gestation? In fact, all of the eggs a woman has in her life, which is her contribution to the formation of human life, are present very early in the womb.
Some are advocating the harvesting of those eggs, for use in in vitro fertilization. In effect, a woman who has no healthy eggs could utilize those taken from an aborted fetus, and thus bear a child. Isn’t the ridiculous position of the pro-choice crowd obvious? They are contending that you can take the eggs of something NOT HUMAN, and by fertilizing those eggs, and giving them a host, cause a human to be born! I have heard of science fiction and horror show plots where a woman carried the egg of something not human, but I never thought that people of reason would believe such possible. Why is it we accept that a female without the ability to produce eggs is nevertheless human, while we deny that a female who has that ability, though very young and still in the womb, could be?
We must as a society recognize that abortion is the greatest horror our nation could possibly sanction. It is the wholesale murder of unborn children!
“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb…” (Luke 1:41).
